I have not delved into all the nooks and crannies of the Plame Game nearly as much as legions of other bloggers, and so I remain confused on a central point. I’m sure some of you will unconfuse me.
Today in the Washington Post Howard Kurz writes that “Libby’s actions appear driven by press criticism of Bush’s erroneous claim about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Niger….”
But was that claim really erroneous? That is, was Michael Barone, among others, wrong when he wrote:
The Senate Intelligence Committee report also refuted completely the charges by former diplomat Joseph Wilson that the Bush administration ignored his conclusion, based on several days in Niger, that Iraq had not sought to buy uranium in that country. Democrats and many in the press claimed that Wilson refuted the 16-word sentence Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech, noting that British intelligence reported that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.
But British intelligence stands by that finding, and the committee noted that Wilson confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger, whose main exports are uranium and goats, and intelligence analysts concluded that his report added nothing else to their previous knowledge. And the report flatly denied Wilson’s statements that his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his mission to Niger — it quotes Plame’s memo taking credit for the appointment.
The report issued last week in Britain by former civil servant Lord Butler reaches similar conclusions. It finds that Prime Minister Tony Blair did not pressure intelligence organizations to change their findings and that there was no “deliberate distortion” of intelligence or “culpable negligence.” It supported the conclusion of British intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium in Africa.
If Barone’s summary of the Senate Intelligence Committee report and the report by Lord Butler is accurate, then it would seem that Kurtz’s claim about “Bush’s erroneous claim” is what is erroneous.
I don’t know how completely reliable it is, but this seems a good summary of the issue.
What I gather from it is that based on information at the time, including Wilson’s report, Bush’s statement was well-founded. Subsequently it has been disavowed by the White House and CIA due to inconclusive evidence, while the British have stood by it. What’s not in dispute, though, is that Wilson was lying to the public.
I don’t place halos on British Intelligence anymore than I would place them on our own.
There were all types of wildly inaccurate statements going on during that same time period about what Saddam Hussein and Iraq were capable of.
If you need a refresher…
>>>”President Bush, speaking during his summit with Tony Blair, said that Saddam was just six months away from going nuclear.
He said the prediction came from the IAEA but a spokesman for the agency said: “We don’t know where he got that figure from.”
The IAEA also said that its revelation last week of new construction work at an Iraqi nuclear site, which it did not identify, did not amount to evidence that Iraq had resumed an illicit nuclear programme.
But Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, said: “We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.”
She added: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
There is little doubt that Iraq would be a nuclear power today had it not been for the Gulf war and subsequent measures.
Western experts believe that on the eve of the war, Iraq was between six months and two years away from building its first nuclear bomb.
Many Iraqi nuclear research facilities were destroyed by Allied bombing and the rest was put out of use by the IAEA, which removed all the weapons-grade material it could find….
…US officials argue that acquiring nuclear weapons might persuade Saddam that it was safe to use chemical or biological weapons against his own people or neighbouring states such as Israel, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
A senior US official told The New York Times: “The jewel in the crown is nuclear.
“The closer he gets to a nuclear capability, the more credible is his threat to use chemical or biological weapons.”
This made an invasion of Iraq imperative, he said. “The closer Saddam Hussein gets to a nuclear weapon, the harder he will be to deal with.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/09/wirq109.xml
We all know NOW how fabulously false all of these statements, conclusions and inflammatory rhetoric are. We also know what happened to people who came out to challenge these claims.
We can no longer afford to blindly accept whatever officials from any nation state proclaims.
Including apparently, our own.
–Cobra
The best intelligence that anyone at the time had seemed to indicate that Hussein was about to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. (I disagree with the “fabulously false” characterization, by the way. That seems to imply that the intel was ridiculous on the face of it, which was not so.) Given that, there were four options:
The intelligence is correct, we act and stop it.
The intelligence is incorrect, we act and at least deliver a nation from a bloodthirsty tyrant.
The intelligence is correct, we do not act, and nuclear war ensues.
The intelligence is incorrect, we do not act and nothing happens.
Given these possibilities, what would you do?
The comments, as usual, are intetesting. Unlike most issues debated here, however, it seems to me (maybe I’m wrong) this one is basically factual: either Saddam did or did not make inquiries in Niger about acquiring yellow cake. Barone says the bipartisan US Intelligence Com report and the Lord Butler report said he did. Either they’re right, or they’re not. Or, I suppose, we still don’t know.
John writes:
>>>”Unlike most issues debated here, however, it seems to me (maybe I’m wrong) this one is basically factual: either Saddam did or did not make inquiries in Niger about acquiring yellow cake. Barone says the bipartisan US Intelligence Com report and the Lord Butler report said he did. Either they’re right, or they’re not. Or, I suppose, we still don’t know.”
That’s acceptable, John, because the x-factor is that we who are making the conclusions aren’t privy to all of the data. Those who made the reports represent governments who were concurrently trying to sell a pre-emptive war.
I like your reasoning in that last post.
Laura,
I don’t think your choices were all that absolute, but you can make the same choice-structure about North Korea and now Iran. Right now we’ve lost 2014 troops, tens of thousands wounded and otherwise evacuated from Iraq, and countless thousands of dead Iraqis at a cost of $137,000 per minute. I just think a little more independent verification of intelligence is in order before our NEXT pre-emptive invasion is in order.
–Cobra
What? We haven’t lost 2,014 troops. That’s around 1,812,600 soldiers.
Cobra, North Korea is a lot closer to Japan, China, and Russia than to us. France and Germany have expressed concern about Iran. I agree with those who say we aren’t the world’s policemen. We have enough to deal with right now. It’s time for somebody else to step up to the plate.
And yes, the choices were that absolute. Not to mention – imagine that you were Pres. Bush having to make that choice. The intelligence community had warned that al-Qaida was planning an attack on NYC. You knew that al-Quaida was based in Afghanistan, but you didn’t feel you could justify violating A.’s national soveriegnty over your intelligence reports. Then 9/11 happened.
Now go back to my choices, and tell me what kind of president Bush would have been had he not acted.
Laura writes:
>>>”Now go back to my choices, and tell me what kind of president Bush would have been had he not acted.”
President Bush DID act. He invaded Afghanistan with an international coalition that had the support of the nation and the world behind him.
The Iraq fiasco was planned WELL before 9/11 by a group called the neo-cons, at the Project for a New American Century.
>>>”January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein
Ah, the infamous Downing Street memo.
Please.
Cobra, what the heck are reconnaisance drones for? Why would he have needed them? Drones can be manufactured for only one purpose? Could it be that the genocide Hussein started carrying out against the Kurds, and would have completed without our enforcing the no-fly zone, was done with reconnaisance drones?
“President Bush DID act. He invaded Afghanistan…” AFTER 9/11. After. He didn’t want to act AFTER a mushroom cloud. Is that so hard to understand?
Laura writes:
>>>”Cobra, what the heck are reconnaisance drones for? Why would he have needed them? Drones can be manufactured for only one purpose? Could it be that the genocide Hussein started carrying out against the Kurds, and would have completed without our enforcing the no-fly zone, was done with reconnaisance drones?”
Laura, the United States uses unmanned drone plane for reconnaisance. They’re called the “Predator”.
Now, if you’re suggesting that foreign governments should pre-emptively strike the US because we deploy unmanned Predator drone planes, I can see your point.
“Now, if you’re suggesting that foreign governments should pre-emptively strike the US because we deploy unmanned Predator drone planes, I can see your point.”
I think I am done with this conversation.
Cobra, if I had the opinion of the USA that you do, my conscience would not permit me to live here.
The logic of this whole case has been mystifying to me ever since it started. I don’t see how the fact (if it is a fact) that Saddam didn’t obtain uranium from Niger proves that he didn’t try to. I don’t see how the fact (if it is a fact) that he didn’t even try to get uranium from Niger proves that he didn’t try to get it from another country in what is, after all, a very large continent. I don’t see how the fact (if it is a fact) that Saddam didn’t apparently have any uranium when he was deposed proves that he didn’t want any, or try to get any.
Laura has a point there. I think it would be amusing to see what Europe would do if asked to supply its own defense, and incidentally were deprived of the US forces whose spending supports many of its communities. OTOH I’m not too happy leaving the Iran situation to Europe; they might easily decide that a certain “sh*tty little country” might just as well be nuked, and wash their hands of the whole mess.
Michelle writes:
>>>”I think it would be amusing to see what Europe would do if asked to supply its own defense, and incidentally were deprived of the US forces whose spending supports many of its communities.”
Exactly what are we defending Europe from in October 2005, anyway?
–Cobra